SeaweedFS vs ZOT OCI Registry
Both are self-hosted file transfer - object storage & file servers projects. This page compares how well each one is actually maintained — the part you cannot see from a feature list.
| SeaweedFS | ZOT OCI Registry | |
|---|---|---|
| Health score | 93/100 | 74/100 |
| Commits (11 mo) | 3075 | 341 |
| Commits (last 3 mo) | 940 | 140 |
| Stars | 35k | 2.8k |
| Latest release | 14 Sept 2026 | 6 Sept 2026 |
| Licence | Apache-2.0 | Apache-2.0 |
| Built with | Go | Go, Docker |
| Typical RAM | 2 GB | 1 GB |
SeaweedFS
SeaweedFS is an open source distributed file system supporting WebDAV, S3 API, FUSE mount, HDFS, etc, optimized for lots of small files, and easy to add capacity.
High commit volume, frequent releases and growing activity.
Commit activity more than 94% of tracked projects; popularity more than 93%. How this is calculated.
Commits, last 11 months
ZOT OCI Registry
A production-ready vendor-neutral OCI-native container image registry.
Actively maintained with regular releases.
Commit activity more than 56% of tracked projects; popularity more than 56%. How this is calculated.
Commits, last 11 months
How to read this
Everything above is measured, not opinion: commit counts and release dates come from the public repositories, and the health score ranks each project against all 1352 projects we track. Read the full method.
What this comparison deliberately does not do is tell you which has the better feature set. Maintenance health tells you which project will still be receiving security fixes in two years. Decide that first, then compare features on the projects that survive the filter.
See every option in this category: self-hosted file transfer - object storage & file servers.